Did you miss the "You would have to include a similar pick package" part or just ignoring it?James Harden fetched a lot more than a 2 year 73 million dollar injured point guard and the #16 pick. Come on now
Did you miss the "You would have to include a similar pick package" part or just ignoring it?James Harden fetched a lot more than a 2 year 73 million dollar injured point guard and the #16 pick. Come on now
Did you miss the part where I asked to see a list of stars traded for Kemba + 16 and you responded with a name in James Harden?Did you miss the "You would have to include a similar pick package" part or just ignoring it?
Houston dumped LaVert for an expiring deal, because they literally didn't want the contract. And dumped that expiring deal for a non-lottery first (in what projects to be a mediocre draft) and the right to swap a second round pick in that same draft. You're basically saying "You can't ignore the free ketchup packets that come with your McDonalds Happy Meal!". I can. Because the odds that the late 22 first amounts to anything are roughly the same as my odds of winning the Powerball lottery tonight. The value is that maybe the Nets suck in the 25-27 time frame.Yeah, you can't just skip LeVert/Oladipo part of it especially since Houston both leading up to and at time of deal focused on need for a veteran proven "semi-star" type. That it didn't work out well doesn't change that every indication is Houston really did care about that part of the deal when it was made
It's apples to oranges because Houston was forced to trade Harden - he made very clear that he had no desire to play for the Rockets anymore and his teammates more or less hated him. Beal hasn't done that and there isn't really any indication that he'd have any issue with playing for Washington for one more year and then assessing his options. Nor is there really any indication that Washington wants to trade Beal - they were much improved this year and don't seem to be preparing for a total teardown. I suspect that Washington still hopes that they can assemble enough pieces in the next year that they can convince Beal to stay or, at minimum, opt in to the last year of his deal.Houston dumped LaVert for an expiring deal, because they literally didn't want the contract. And dumped that expiring deal for a non-lottery first (in what projects to be a mediocre draft) and the right to swap a second round pick in that same draft. You're basically saying "You can't ignore the free ketchup packets that come with your McDonalds Happy Meal!". I can. Because the odds that the late 22 first amounts to anything are roughly the same as my odds of winning the Powerball lottery tonight. The value is that maybe the Nets suck in the 25-27 time frame.
Beal is literally an expiring deal at this point. If he goes on the market you're not going to find a lot of teams willing to send out a large return for the hope that he'll sign with them next summer. It's much different from the Harden situation as his contract had two years to run at the time and teams were willing to make better deals. And the Rockets still ended up with three pennies on the dollar.Did you miss the part where I asked to see a list of stars traded for Kemba + 16 and you responded with a name in James Harden?
I would love to see this list
It's not fair of you to continue to give these rude, tossed off responses when I gave a list of similar deals just up the page: Irving, Conley, and Kyrie, and you can add Westbrook, Kawhi Leonard, and several others to the list of superstar reputations on expirings who went for dross or a little better than dross plus a pick. San Antonio got Derozan back in that deal for Kawhi, but he's never been the kind of guy you want to pay the money he's getting: I think if anything taking on Derozan's deal was the move of a team that knew it was heading for a rebuild.James Harden fetched a lot more than a 2 year 73 million dollar injured point guard and the #16 pick. Come on now
What does any of that have to do with the reality that no one is going to give Washington a Davis style return for the right to watch Beal walk next summer? Washington may elect to roll the dice on re-signing Beal, given how badly they've mismanaged things there it might even be the best course of action. But they're still not getting much beyond filler and some late firsts for him if they try to trade him.It's apples to oranges because Houston was forced to trade Harden - he made very clear that he had no desire to play for the Rockets anymore and his teammates more or less hated him. Beal hasn't done that and there isn't really any indication that he'd have any issue with playing for Washington for one more year and then assessing his options. Nor is there really any indication that Washington wants to trade Beal - they were much improved this year and don't seem to be preparing for a total teardown. I suspect that Washington still hopes that they can assemble enough pieces in the next year that they can convince Beal to stay or, at minimum, opt in to the last year of his deal.
I brought it up because he was literally traded for hope. Houston got nothing of tangible value unless the Nets implode in a few years. And given that they're fucked by the Westbrook trade they could conceivably rebuilding for the next decade if the Nets are managed well.I understand, but why bring up Harden as a comp then?
HOU most assuredly fucked it up, mainly by just giving away LeVert. BRK gave up a ton to get Harden thoughI brought it up because he was literally traded for hope. Houston got nothing of tangible value unless the Nets implode in a few years. And given that they're fucked by the Westbrook trade they could conceivably rebuilding for the next decade if the Nets are managed well.
Because I don't think Washington's decision of "trade Beal/don't trade Beal" is binary. They are not going to just wake up one day and decide they need to trade Beal at all costs unless Beal pulls a Harden (or unless they start the season terribly and do an Orlando-style deadline sell-off, but this thread is focusing on what the Celtics can do this offseason, not at next season's trade deadline).What does any of that have to do with the reality that no one is going to give Washington a Davis style return for the right to watch Beal walk next summer? Washington may elect to roll the dice on re-signing Beal, given how badly they've mismanaged things there it might even be the best course of action. But they're still not getting much beyond filler and some late firsts for him if they try to trade him.
Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, and every first round pick until 2027 is substantial.No, they really didn't. To paraphrase Mike Gorman they gave up bacon bits.
The question was "Why would Washington trade Beal for filler and firsts?" The answer is "Because that's his worth given the reality that he's a pending free agent."Because I don't think Washington's decision of "trade Beal/don't trade Beal" is binary. They are not going to just wake up one day and decide they need to trade Beal at all costs unless Beal pulls a Harden (or unless they start the season terribly and do an Orlando-style deadline sell-off, but this thread is focusing on what the Celtics can do this offseason, not at next season's trade deadline).
I don't disagree with you that teams on the other side of a potential trade will be wary of overpaying for a rental - my point is just that unless a team is willing to overpay, I doubt Washington trades him at all, at least in this offseason.
A roleplayer, a part time roleplayer making $17.5 million per year, and some very low first round picks is the opposite of substantial. Unless the Nets implode. That is literally all Houston got, the hope that the Nets implode.Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, and every first round pick until 2027 is substantial.
I actually think the Wizards would be smart to move him now, because they'll get much less for him at the trade deadline that they would if they traded him now. I hope they see the writing on the wall after they got burned by John Wall, but then again, they just gave up a pick for the right to watch Westbrook decline. So I agree, they probably don't trade him at first, but for different reasons, namely that the Wizards are a bad organization.Because I don't think Washington's decision of "trade Beal/don't trade Beal" is binary. They are not going to just wake up one day and decide they need to trade Beal at all costs unless Beal pulls a Harden (or unless they start the season terribly and do an Orlando-style deadline sell-off, but this thread is focusing on what the Celtics can do this offseason, not at next season's trade deadline).
I don't disagree with you that teams on the other side of a potential trade will be wary of overpaying for a rental - my point is just that unless a team is willing to overpay, I doubt Washington trades him at all, at least in this offseason.
I agree that it is, but you're ignoring the facts that don't serve you: James Harden was still under contract for almost two years, is the better player by quite a margin, and was screaming to get out of town. Beal is not even half the passer that Harden is, is signed for just one more year, and is doing anything but screaming to get out of town. You have to account for the screaming, quality of player, and length of deal. That extra year is a huge difference.Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, and every first round pick until 2027 is substantial.
If the Warriors end up with two firsts on draft night they'd be the one team I could see making the gamble given that they have to include Wiggins to make the numbeers work.Its impossible to say what will happen but @Fishy1 seems right - the key for any Beal package is how much of the process is being driven by the player versus the organization. And the Wizards should be actively shopping him right now before he puts them in a really bad spot. That said, I expect many teams to be in on him so if Beal has a strong preference, the Wizards could still find a team where they aren't getting completely hosed in a value sense.
Even if Beal wants to play with Tatum, would he say no to a Warriors trade? Maybe, maybe not...
Brooklyn and Philadelphia both offered a ton. Houston, for whatever reason, decided they didn’t want any of it, preferring the immediate tank route.HOU most assuredly fucked it up, mainly by just giving away LeVert. BRK gave up a ton to get Harden though
We really don't know what Philly offered. We do know what Brooklyn offered, and it wasn't a ton even if you added the weights of all the players involved. I mean, seriously guys, Lavert has played about 2/3 of the possible games in his career. That's a part time roleplayer. And he was the crowning jewel of the talent return. And the tank route was high risk given that Houston has a real chance of losing their first this year. And next year's draft is depleted at the top due to the defections of Kuminga and Barnes.Brooklyn and Philadelphia both offered a ton. Houston, for whatever reason, decided they didn’t want any of it, preferring the immediate tank route.
From the article:
I mean, I like Kemba, but we don't need his buy-in here. And there's really nothing he can do to make it *easier* to trade him.Sources said the Boston Celtics and Walker are likely to move forward from their relationship this offseason in a mutual agreement between the parties.
Can’t he waive his trade kicker? That’s a pretty big deal.From the article:
I mean, I like Kemba, but we don't need his buy-in here. And there's really nothing he can do to make it *easier* to trade him.
Yes he can waive it but it really isn’t a deterrent to the acquiring team since it is the Celtics who would be responsible for paying him the bonus.Can’t he waive his trade kicker? That’s a pretty big deal.
Yeah to be clear I completely agree that they should trade Beal this offseason. They should be looking to trade Westbrook too, if any team were willing to give up anything of even moderate value for him. They need a full reset and it's always better to get those over with sooner rather than later. I'm just skeptical that they actually will.I actually think the Wizards would be smart to move him now, because they'll get much less for him at the trade deadline that they would if they traded him now. I hope they see the writing on the wall after they got burned by John Wall, but then again, they just gave up a pick for the right to watch Westbrook decline. So I agree, they probably don't trade him at first, but for different reasons, namely that the Wizards are a bad organization.
Yep.Can’t he waive his trade kicker? That’s a pretty big deal.
It could be helpful for salary matching purposes because his trade kicker counts as part of his salary for the team acquiring him but not for the team trading him (the Celtics). Not a huge deal but could be relevant if the Celtics only have a single potential trade partner and they are having trouble matching up salaries.Yes he can waive it but it really isn’t a deterrent to the acquiring team since it is the Celtics who would be responsible for paying him the bonus.
I think it looked like they thought that either:@nighthob do you have any evidence that Houston didn't value Lavert? I was under the impression that they mistakenly had a positive value for Oladipo and had a misguided view that he'd be someone they could sign long-term, not flip for practically nothing at the deadline. At the time of the Harden trade, I think they had ridiculous plans (maybe demanded from ownership) to continue to try to compete.
So rather than seeing Lavert as peanuts, they viewed him as an asset they could flip for a "star" they liked better.
Yeah, that's what I thought, which means that Houston did value Lavert as a positive value asset that they were flipping for Oladipo, who would do one of the two things above (hypothetically). It did not seem like a "garbage for garbage" deal at the time as has been asserted. Looking back, I think you would, as Houston, way prefer having Lavert on his short contract than trading Oladipo for the scraps they ended up getting.I think it looked like they thought that either:
1. Oladipo would sign at a reasonable long term deal
or
2. They could flip Oladipo for real value at the deadline.
instead he asked for way more than they were willing to pay, and nobody wanted to give anything up for him at the deadline
So really it was a combination of misreading his value around the league, and underestimating his willingness to test the market.
minimally you’d have to add Brown and Smart just for salary matchingCan we get Westbrook and Beal while ditching Kemba and giving up some picks? Is that even possible before I even bother thinking if it is a good idea?
Not going to do it, wouldn’t be pertinent.minimally you’d have to add Brown and Smart just for salary matching
Don't you mean "prudent"...at this juncture?Not going to do it, wouldn’t be pertinent.
The salaries can work without Jaylen. Kemba/Marcus/Thompson/Neismith/Langford/Timelord works.minimally you’d have to add Brown and Smart just for salary matching
Wow that’s a pretty crappy return with redundancy at the 5 now that Gafford has emerged. Sure they will have better offers without taking up half of their roster spots.The salaries can work without Jaylen. Kemba/Marcus/Thompson/Neismith/Langford/Timelord works.
Just responding to a post asking what was required for salary matching.Wow that’s a pretty crappy return with redundancy at the 5 now that Gafford has emerged. Sure they will have better offers without taking up half of their roster spots.
There would be picks and swaps too.Wow that’s a pretty crappy return with redundancy at the 5 now that Gafford has emerged. Sure they will have better offers without taking up half of their roster spots.
Oh I know. This simply isn’t a deal that makes sense for the Wizards was my point. Fill their roster with mostly guys they probably don’t even want to appease the Celtics.Just responding to a post asking what was required for salary matching.
That they unloaded him on the Pacers for a guy with an injury history longer than the Hundred Years War? Which is about all you can expect given LaVert's injury history.@nighthob do you have any evidence that Houston didn't value Lavert?
Seriously, in the last three years Oladipo has played about a full season of basketball. And given that his injuries are all in the right knee no one saw Oladipo as anything but a distressed asset. There was the prayer that he could get healthy and give you 75% of what he once was, but the trade was Houston's desperate gambit to get something for Harden because there is a real chance that the picks turn into nothing.I was under the impression that they mistakenly had a positive value for Oladipo and had a misguided view that he'd be someone they could sign long-term. ...
So rather than seeing Lavert as peanuts, they viewed him as an asset they could flip for a "star" they liked better.